Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

The Secret to Success with Trade Secrets – 5 Factors That Litigation Funders Should Consider When Evaluating Trade Secrets Cases

The following article is a contribution from Ben Quarmby and Jonathan E. Barbee, Partner and Counsel at MoloLamken LLP, respectively. 

Litigation funders have trade secrets on their minds.  Since the introduction of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in 2016, trade secrets litigation has been on the rise.  Over a thousand trade secrets cases were filed in federal court in both 2021 and 2022.  By all accounts, that trend is set to continue.  Big verdicts have followed, with some trade secrets verdicts now rivaling the biggest patent verdicts.  In the information age, a company’s most valuable intellectual property may not be its patents after all, but the wealth of non-patented, proprietary information surrounding its ideas—its trade secrets.

Trade secrets cases can be more attractive to litigation funders than patent cases.  The funding of patent deals is regularly scuttled by patent expirations, validity concerns (especially Section 101 patent eligibility concerns), the threat of inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the perceived focus of the Federal Circuit on reversing the largest patent verdicts that come before it.  Trade secrets side-step many of these issues.  They do not expire.  They are less likely to be sunk by an obscure prior art reference.  They are not subject to IPR proceedings.  And they are generally not subject to scrutiny by the Federal Circuit.  They also offer many of the same benefits to plaintiffs as patent cases: they too can be rooted in invention stories that will resonate with juries and lead to exemplary damages.

They offer their own challenges, of course.  Unlike patent cases, there is no “innocent” misappropriation with trade secrets.  A defendant must often come into contact with the plaintiff’s trade secrets for a claim to arise.  Successful trade secret claims usually require a chain of events that put the trade secrets in the hands of the defendant.  Patent plaintiffs do not face those hurdles.

Finding promising trade secrets cases requires identifying the types of companies that will regularly find themselves in situations that lead to trade secret misappropriation: joint ventures, startups seeking investment by larger industry players, acquisition targets, and companies operating in industries with high employee turnover and mobility.  And once those cases are found, performing due diligence on them requires a very specific type of focus.

The following steps are critical:

  • Identify the Trade Secrets. Ensure at the outset that there are clean, concrete, and well-defined trade secrets to assert.  In some jurisdictions, plaintiffs must identify their trade secrets before proceeding with discovery—failure to do so with sufficient precision can stop the litigation dead in its tracks.  If plaintiffs can clearly identify the form of the trade secrets (e.g., scientific data, customer lists, product recipes, hard copy documents, etc.), the chain of custody for those trade secrets, and any changes made to the trade secrets over time, their case is far more likely to withstand the test of litigation.
  • Verify the Plaintiff’s Protective Measures. Defendants will generally argue that a plaintiff has not taken adequate steps to protect its trade secrets.  You need a clean and clear story to tell about the steps a plaintiff has taken to protect its intellectual property.  Tangible evidence of such steps—company policies, firewalls, passwords—is invaluable.  And there should be a narrow or controlled universe of third parties—if any—with whom the information has been shared.  Each additional third party with access to the information can increase the uncertainty surrounding the trade secrets and affect the value of the case.
  • Estimate the Value of Trade Secrets. Calculating damages in trade secrets cases can be trickier than in patent cases.  It is harder to find comparable licenses or valuations for similar types of trade secrets since trade secrets are just that—secret.  There are also fewer established damages methodologies in trade secrets cases.  While this allows for more flexibility and creativity in crafting a damages theory, it can also make trade secret damages susceptible to challenges.  The Georgia-Pacific factors used so often in patent cases can help determine reasonable royalty rates in trade secrets cases, but courts have yet to adopt those factors as the definitive standard for trade secrets.  In conducting due diligence, hire a damages expert to estimate the value of trade secrets before filing a case.
  • Assess the Value of Injunctive Relief. Trade secrets cases are often better candidates for injunctive relief than patent cases.  Determine the strength of a case’s injunctive relief prospects early on.  The likelihood of injunctive relief has to be factored into the economic value of a trade secrets case, since it will directly impact the likelihood of early settlement.
  • Determine the Narrative. Storytelling matters in every IP case.  But it perhaps matters in trade secrets cases even more so.  It is imperative to have reliable witnesses who can illustrate the plaintiff’s narrative in a compelling and clean way.  Test the potential witnesses before considering funding.  Let them tell their story—and challenge that story—under conditions that will most closely approximate those at trial.  Attractive cases should tell a persuasive story about how the trade secrets reflect plaintiffs’ know-how, experience, and competitive edge, and also expose the motives for defendants to steal those trade secrets.

These considerations are a starting point.  Due diligence should be tailored to the particular facts and nuances of each potential trade secrets case.  Careful consideration of these factors will help ensure that funders make the wisest investments, while avoiding common pitfalls in trade secrets litigation.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

CJC Publishes Final Report on Litigation Funding, Recommends ‘Light-Touch Regulation’

By Harry Moran |

In the six months since the Civil Justice Council published its Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, the industry has waited patiently to see what shape its final recommendations would take and what that would mean for  the future of legal funding in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has today released the Final Report that concludes its review of litigation funding. The 150-page document provides a detailed overview of the findings, and includes 58 recommendations. These recommended light-touch regulations include base-line rules for funders, the mandatory disclosure of funding in proceedings, a rejection of a cap on funder returns, and tailored requirements for commercial versus consumer litigation funding.

The report emphasises that the aim of its reforms is to ‘promote effective access to justice, the fair and proportionate regulation of third party litigation funding, and improvements to the provision and accessibility of other forms of litigation funding.’ Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the Civil Justice Council, said that the report “epitomises the raison d’être of the CJC: promoting effective access to justice for all”, and that “the recommendations will improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the overall litigation funding landscape.”

Unsurprisingly, the first and most pressing recommendation put forward is for the legislative reversal of the effects of PACCAR, suggesting that it be made clear ‘that there is a categorical difference’ between litigation funding and contingency fee funding, and that ‘litigation funding is not a form of DBA’. The CJC’s report categorically states that these two forms of funding ‘are separate and should be subject to separate regulatory regimes.’ Therefore, the report also suggests that the ‘current CFA and DBA legislation should be replaced by a single, simplified legislative contingency fee regime.’

The report also makes distinctions between different modes of legal funding, recommending that the new rules should not apply to funded arbitration proceedings. It also suggests a tailored approach between commercial and consumer litigation funding, with a ‘minimal’ approach recommended for commercial proceedings, whereas a ‘greater, but still light-touch’ approach is preferred for the funding of consumer and collective proceedings. These additional measures for group actions include provisions such as court-approval for the terms of funding agreements and the funder’s return, as well ‘enhanced notice’ of that return to class members during the opt-out period.

However, the report does push forward with establishing a ‘minimum, base-line, set of regulatory requirements’ for litigation funding regardless of the type of proceedings being funded. Among the expected recommendations such as capital adequacy and conflict of interest provisions is a mandatory disclosure requirement which would include the existence of funding, the name of the funder and original source of the funds. An important aspect of the disclosure measures that will no doubt be welcomed by funders, is the caveat that ‘the terms of LFAs should not, generally, be subject to disclosure.’

Among the proposals rejected by the working group in the final report, the most notable are the idea of a cap on litigation funder’s returns and the presumption of security for costs, although the latter would be required if a funder breaches capital adequacy requirements. The report does suggest that portfolio funding should be ‘regulated as a form of loan’, with the government encouraged to review the effectiveness of third party funding on the legal profession.

As for the identity of the regulatory body sitting above this new light-touch regulation, the report does not recommend the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as the appropriate body. However, the new status of portfolio funding as a form of loan would fall under the FCA’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the report suggests that this decision regarding the overseeing regulatory body ‘should be revisited in five years’ following the introduction of the new rules.

As for the implementation of the recommendations laid out in the report, the CJC recommends ‘a twin-track approach’ with the first priority being the reversal of PACCAR, which it says ‘ought properly to be implemented as soon as possible.’ The second track would see the introduction of new legislation as a single statute: a Litigation Funding, Courts and Redress Act, that would cover the 56 recommendations outlined throughout the report. This single statute would see the repeal of existing legislation, providing a comprehensive alternative that would cover all necessary areas around civil litigation funding.

The Final Report builds on the work done in the CJC’s Interim Report that was published on 31 October 2024, which set out to provide the foundational background to the development of third party funding in England and Wales. The report’s foreword notes that the working group was assisted through 84 responses to its consultation, existing reports such as the European Commission’s mapping study, as well as discussions held at forums and consultation meetings.The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding – Final Report can be read in full here.

Commercial Legal Innovation

Dejonghe & Morley Launches as Strategic Advisory for Law Firms and Investors

By Harry Moran |

Apart from the standard funding of individual cases and portfolio funding, recent years have demonstrated an increasing trend of more direct investment into law firms from third-party funds.

An article in The Global Legal Post covers the launch of Dejonghe & Morley, a new consultancy seeking to advise law firms on private equity investment. The new firm has been founded by Wim Dejonghe and David Morley, two former senior partners from Allen & Overy (A&O), who are looking to work primarily with small to medium-sized law firms on everything from identifying potential investment partners to deal-structuring.

Explaining the motivation to launch this new outfit, Dejonghe said that they identified “the influx of investment” into other areas of professional services and realised there was “a need in the legal sector for a consultancy that could bring together law firms and private capital.” On their strategy to target their services away from the larger law firms, Dejonghe explained that medium-sized firms have the greatest need as they’re “trying to be everything to everyone but don’t necessarily have the ability to compete with larger firms in terms of tech and talent.” 

Prior to this venture, Dejonghe had served as Global Managing Partner at A&O until 2016 before moving on to become the Senior Partner for A&O Shearman. Morley had previously held the role of Senior Partner at A&O until his departure in 2016 and in the years since has taken on a variety of roles including Chair of Vannin Capital prior to its acquisition by Fortress, and Managing Director and Head of Europe for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

More information about Dejonghe & Morley can be found on its website.

Case Developments Commercial

$67m Settlement Reached in QSuper Class Action Funded by Woodsford

By Harry Moran |

Another busy week for class action funding in Australia, as a significant settlement in a class action brought against a superannuation fund has made headlines. 

Reporting by Financial Standard covers the announcement of a A$67 million settlement in the class action brought against QSuper over allegations that the super fund members were overcharged for their life insurance premiums. The class action was originally filed in the Federal Court of Australia in November 2021, with Shine Lawyers leading the claim and Woodsford providing litigation funding for the proceedings. The settlement, which has been reached without any admission of liability from QSuper, remains subject to court approval by the Federal Court of Australia.

In a separate media release, Craig Allsopp, joint head of class actions at Shine Lawyers, said that the settlement “brings long-awaited relief to affected fund members, the vast majority of which were Queensland Government employees and their spouses, including teachers, doctors, and other essential workers”. 

Alex Hickson, Director of Woodsford Australia, said that the funder is “delighted that we could assist past and current fund members of QSuper to achieve redress through this class action, by allowing the case to be run with no upfront costs to class members.”

A spokesperson for Australian Retirement Trust (ART), the new company formed as a result of the merger between QSuper and Sunsuper, said that “the settlement amount will come out of money that had already been set aside by QSuper to provide for the potential liability from the class action, which was put into a reserve at the time of the merger”.